list_vehicle_assemblies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds a useful caveat that geometry is not preset-specific, but otherwise spends its behavioral budget on workflow rather than deeper characteristics like response shape or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the follow-up workflow, then the geometry caveat. 'Read-only' slightly duplicates the annotations, but the rest earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: contents of the listing, the downstream steps involving edit_parts and apply_vehicle_assembly, and the geometry caveat. Return-value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side, and it correctly does not invent parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the reusable control assemblies') and enumerates exactly what the result contains: part ids each assembly must be bound to and expected logic gates. This is clearly distinguishable from apply_vehicle_assembly and edit_parts, which are the write-side siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete workflow: place required gates with edit_parts, then bind the queried ids with apply_vehicle_assembly. That tells the agent where this tool sits in the sequence and which siblings follow it, though it does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.